Melanie Phillips and the gaggle of paranoids that make up the internet’s nutty ‘Counter-Jihad’ movement are loudly insisting that they don’t advocate acts of violence or terrorism.

For now, let’s assume that’s true and move on from there.

What, exactly, do they imagine it is that they are advocating?
I ask because the message they’ve been sending out loud and clear is that Europe is under threat of imminent enslavement, and quite possibly genocide, at the hands of a sinister cabal of Marxist fifth-columnists in cahoots with one of our largest ethnic minority groups, the latter of which they portray as irrevocably violent and totalitarian.

Unsurprisingly, they’re stridently in favour of “resisting” this theoretical dictatorship.

That being the case, what kind of “resistance” do they expect the urgent threat of Nazi-Commie-Jihadist European domination to inspire in their readership? A sudden upsurge in the creation of idiot blogs?

It isn’t good enough to pimp this fearmongering lunacy then disown the crazy actions of your ideological stablemates.

If your message amounts to this:“I’m not saying that we need to take up arms in extreme violence against our compatriots or viciously repress our nations’ ethnic minorities. I’m just saying that inaction will inevitably lead to the total destruction of the western way of life and the enslavement of our loved ones at the hands of a foreign invader whose motivations are entirely alien and malign. But I’m definitely not urging violence in the face of certain genocide”.

…What is it that you want your readers to take away from your work?

There are plenty of calls for calm around, with reasonable people counselling against linking one man’s horrific crimes to the deranged views he espouses, those being a half-baked political analysis that has been festering on the internet and even in the pages of the mainstream right wing press such as the Mail and the Spectator for years.

I disagree. I think that now, more than ever, fingers need to be pointed squarely at those who have been disseminating this poisonous cack, and searching questions need to be asked.

So do we apply this same leap of logic to the anti-cuts movement? When UK Uncut talk about “devastating” cuts “ruining lives” are they morally culpable in the event of an extreme left wing nutter (of the Baader Meinhof, Angry Brigade variety) shooting boys from Eton or attacking a Young Conservatives cheese and wine party?

People of all political orientations should avoid wild rhetoric and hyperbole but to claim that Melanie Phillips bears any responsibility for the massacre in Norway is a tawdry attempt to exploit a tragedy for political gain.

@ Colin, Are you seriously comparing Mad Mel’s hatemongering and the anti-cuts movement’s sloganeering! If so, you must either hold this serious issue in such low regard you can mock it by making ludicrous statements, or you must be a complete and total idiot. Which?

Mel P’s central thesis seems to be that UK society is under threat from a variety of sources, and that liberal thinking and multiculturalism in particular have facilitated an erosion of what was once a more educated and cohesive society?

I suppose as a basic starting point we need to find a way to quantify or measure the sort of changes Mel P is worried about, or this thread, as sure as eggs are eggs, will quickLy degenerate into little more than a slagging or anecdote fest?

Having said that, MP’s fear are not just about today but the sort of changes that might arise tomorrow as a result of different demographics – so less easy to measure, or quantify I guess?

Yakoub, you can make any analogy you like. The 7/7 bombers spouted anti-war rhetoric that was indistinguishable from Flying Rodent’s and many others, but it would be a bit mad (to say the least) to claim the FR was in any way responsible for those attacks. Very typical of this website, though, to find freedom of speech to be the enemy lurking under every atrocity. I wonder what the bloggers here think ‘liberal’ means.

shooting boys from Eton or attacking a Young Conservatives cheese and wine party?

Good point, when that happens we will talk about that, at the moment everyone seems to be talking about a right wing fucknut who gunned down loads of teenagers at a Labour Party youth camp cause of all that treason they have commited….

Still, the cheese and wine bombing of 2012 cant be far off….its polly what made me do it, and here is my manifesto. Its just mainly charlie brooker articles, moaning about the state of the video game industry, but its got a bit of David Mitchell in there, he is moaning about dvds, its quite fun. Dont worry, I also have got some boring stuff in there too from that geezer who keeps banging on about global warming, and that bloke from the mirror who is always on BBC1 making a few jokes about eric pickles being really fat.

Mad Mel may not be responsible for the massacre, but her paranoid rants certainly added to the noise which fostered the climate of hate that leads to massacres such as we’ve seen. And there will be more until people stand up to her bullying, Islamophobic, anti-liberal ways of thinking. More power to your elbow, Flying Rodent. But expect a lot of hateful comments from the usual suspects/apologists for bullshit.

“Many of these groups claim to be tolerant and anti-fascist, but yet, I have never met anyone as hypocritical, racist and fascist as the people whom I used to call friends and allies. The media glorifies them while they wreck havoc across the city, rob and plunder. Yet, any attempts their victims do to consolidate are harshly condemned by all aspects of the cultural establishment as racism and Nazism…. The lefties/hip-hop movement, including the Pakistani gangs and other minority gangs – in cooperation with SOS Rasisme and Blitz were notorically and systematically violent, even racist and discriminating towards ethnic Norwegian youths and anti-immigrant individuals. They abused drugs and many were involved in criminal activity, yet cheered by the media because of their “tolerance” and so called “anti-racist” attitude.”

The point should *not* be that “ethnic Norwegian” or Nazi groups should be equally encouraged and financially supported by the government! Rather, it is that the Muslim extremists should be condemned as strongly as the Nazis, by the media and by the authorities. That would be the rule of law. There should be no “Jizya”, no beatings of “Kuffir”, for the same reason that there should be no attacks on Jews! A war not on Nazis, nor on Muslims, but on gangsters and gangs in general.

“The anti-war movement may not be responsible for the 7/7 massacre, but their paranoid rants certainly added to the noise which fostered the climate of hate that leads to massacres such as we’ve seen.”

“I disagree. I think that now, more than ever, fingers need to be pointed squarely at those who have been disseminating this poisonous cack, and searching questions need to be asked.”

Fingers need to be pointed squarely at every fascist in this country, whether they’re white and English, or brown and muslim, whatever.

There are some extremely odious EDL types and some extremely odious Islamist types. Lets root all of em out and then the rest of us dull, boring average people who just want to muddle by can do so in peace without these walking impediments to progress slowing us down with their moonbat ideas.

As I said, apologists for bullshit… show me any anti-war campaigner with a profile as high as Mad Mel & has hate-filled & paranoid & you might have a point. Otherwise, fuck off with shit analogies. Phillips has been spewing hate into the national discourse for literally decades. Her and Littlejohn and similar despise western society just as much as the Islamists they suspect live under every bed.

I think the odds of anyone actually answering the question in the title are very, very slim – they’ll just complain about censorship instead, despite the fact that no-one has mentioned censorship. A textbook “look over there”, in other words.

Let’s be clear: left wingers who rant and use incendiary rhetoric cannot be blamed for the actions of psychos who espouse their ideas but right wingers who rant and use incendiary rhetoric must take responsibility for the actions of psychos who espouse their ideas.

So do we apply this same leap of logic to the anti-cuts movement? When UK Uncut talk about “devastating” cuts “ruining lives” are they morally culpable in the event of an extreme left wing nutter (of the Baader Meinhof, Angry Brigade variety) shooting boys from Eton or attacking a Young Conservatives cheese and wine party?

Except of course, it never happens. The Left never go off in one like this do they? Last week, Murdoch nearly got pied and that is about as bad as it gets among the Left. There have never been a hundred people killed as a lone Lefty stalking the streets, trying to impose Big Government on innocent bystanders. By God if it ever does, the Right wing press will go absolutely apeshit over it.

No-one on the Left goes in for this endless stream of hate the way the Right goes on about their hate figures. We never attack the weak and defenceless the way you do and we NEVER use the type of language that you people do either.

We have seen terms like ‘parasite’ used in mainstream newspapers to describe council workers, ‘scroungers’ for people with long-term mental health issues. That is the language of hate and is designed to appeal to a certain type of scumbag. The sociopath who looks down on the rest of society, unfortunately, these people are exactly the type of people who are likely to be social misfits that buy and use guns too.

@Torquil – Very typical of this website, though, to find freedom of speech to be the enemy lurking under every atrocity. I wonder what the bloggers here think ‘liberal’ means.

I’ve just posted this on another thread, but it’ll do the same job here.

I’d defend Mel’s right to free speech entirely – she can say what she likes, and so can all the other nutters.

Respecting her right to speak her mind is not the same as exempting her from criticism and it’s perfectly fair to point out the logical conclusions of the arguments she makes, and to invite her and all the other loons to come up with a response that isn’t a lot of paranoid bollocks.

On the part of Mel and the other Counter-Jihadomentals, it’s long since ceased to be surprising or believable that they always “accidentally” mistake criticism for censorship.

I think that they trot that line out so often that we can now dispense with intellectual charity and assume that they use that tactic 100% of the time as a way of bullshitting and evading the points being put to them. Now, more than ever, they should be called out for their noxious output and asked to account for it, and not be diverted by spurious claims of non-existent censorship.

Obviously, when people whip up paranoia and hatred against certain demographics (as opposed to discussing the issues rationally), their actions increase the liklihood of violence even where they haven’t explicitly called for such violence themselves.

However, it should also be pointed out that those who do not challenge these people, and those who actually pander to them, also share some responsibility for, at best, failing to stem the tide of paranoia and hatred, and at worse, for actually legitimising it. And that applies to politicians and pundits right across the mainstream of politics in Europe and North America.

Its long past time for people on all sides of the political spectrum (it by no means has to be just the left – Peter Oborne has done this as well) to stand up and assert the plain fact that our “way of life”, our culture, our vaules, is not under existential threat from some alien other. The point has to be made pro-actively and aggressively. The mythology has to be sought out, tackled head on, and exposed for the arrant nonsense that it is.

Yes, its not racist to talk sensibly about immigration, or cultural difference. But lets not pretend that’s what we’ve been doing. The rise of the far right has not been halted or reversed by the anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism bidding war that’s gone on between mainstream parties. To the contrary, it has been fuelled by it. And I’m afraid to say that what happened in Norway appears to be very much connected to this dynamic. It needs to stop. Now.

I’ll repeat the question I posed on the last contribution. Why is it “poisonous cack”? Is the left too arrogant to refute the arguments instead coming up with vulgar insults or are they afraid that if they do so, their own weaknesses will become clear?

“I think the odds of anyone actually answering the question in the title are very, very slim”

The question has been phrased so as to be unanswerable, its intention is to nudge and wink and associate, not to analyse. ‘People like Melanie Phillips’ is an undefinable category, which lets FR and others always dodge any serious reply. If he had simply asked ‘What is Melanie Phillips calling for?’ it would be easily answered because she spells this out in her various articles (which you may deplore but can hardly accuse of being excessively mealy mouthed). That’s why this line of blogging amounts to a smear. Always be suspicious of complaints about large vague entities such as ‘people like this or that’.

This article is a poorly disguised smear. Look, you may “violently” disagree with the policies of the right but you should be able to see that you are poisoning the well of democratic debate by trying to associate the actions of a nut-job with perfectly law-abiding and respectable opinions of those you oppose. By respectable, I am not saying they are opinions you need to agree with or even approve of, but opinions you should be prepared to defend the existence of in a pluralistic society.

There are no meaningful political conclusions that can be drawn from this idiot. It flatters him to think there are. He’s no more indicative of the mainstream right than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu (ad infinitum) are of the mainstream left.

Where you see short-term political point-scoring, most people just see a tosser being a tosser.

“George Galloway to name only one. But I don’t really think you are reachable by argument.”

hahahaha. The difference is, as you well know, GG is widely-criticised by many on the left. Not to mention being seen as something of a crackpot by most people. Mel gets away with plenty of crap without the Right saying anything, in fact even defending her – Boris Johnson also holds similar views on Islam – & has a cosy relationship with the likes of the Speccie & Mail ensuring her voice is heard (and as I said, adding to the noise). But I don’t really think you are reachable by argument.
😉

“Respecting her right to speak her mind is not the same as exempting her from criticism and it’s perfectly fair to point out the logical conclusions of the arguments she makes”

Well, yes, and if that is what you were doing who could complain. But you seem to be implying that the ‘logical conclusion’ is the murder of Norwegian teenagers, which makes one wonder why you never pointed this out before. If you think it follows logically from what Melanie Phillips writes that people will be murdered, you cannot surely think it acceptable for her to continue writing.

“On the part of Mel and the other Counter-Jihadomentals, it’s long since ceased to be surprising or believable that they always “accidentally” mistake criticism for censorship.”

If you hold that murder follows logically from a certain kind of writing, it follows logically that that sort of writing should be censored. That is,after all, why we have laws against incitement to violence.

“Now, more than ever, they should be called out for their noxious output and asked to account for it, and not be diverted by spurious claims of non-existent censorship.”

And from this it follows that you should be held to account for the consequences of your anti-war rhetoric which led, by your logic, to the murders of 7/7.

” The difference is, as you well know, GG is widely-criticised by many on the left. Not to mention being seen as something of a crackpot by most people. Mel gets away with plenty of crap without the Right saying anything”

You are using vague undefinable categories again. Melanie Phillips is criticise widely and vigorously by people from all sorts of ideological backgrounds. George Galloway was a platform speaker for Stop the War and may still be for all I know. I don’t have a dog in this race, I don’t care much for either of them, but the attempt to smear Phillips should be distasteful to anyone who values freedom of expression. It’s not just about protecting speech that you agree with, you know.

So is there a hypothesis that Anders Breivik was driven near mad by the whisperings of one Mel Phillips – an otherwise model citizen who finally cracked under a continuous onslaught from Mel and her evil twin, JohnLittle?

Is there a difference between this sort of thinking and those who blame shoot ‘um games when the latest killer goes on the rampage in a US city?

Let’s be clear: left wingers who rant and use incendiary rhetoric cannot be blamed for the actions of psychos who espouse their ideas

When does his ever happen? When do innocent children get killed by lone gunmen demanding ‘Big Government’ or decent public sector pensions? If it does happen, BTW, the Right will piss themselves over it and we will have no end of links to the person and unions, Left Wing groups, newspaper columnists, websites etc.

By Christ, if ever a Lefty puts a window in, every Left Winger in the Country has got fingerprints on it.

Lefties do sometimes use overblown rhetoric. However, it is usually wrong and exaggerated rhetoric about things that are actually happening. The demagogue journalists on the right exist in a paranoid permanently angry alternative reality screeching about things that do not exist. Society is not run by cultural Marxists and there is no imminent takeover by sharia law. It is all in their febrile imaginations that feed their perpetual sense of victimhood. They really do believe white middle class males who are usually middle aged are victims. The absurdity of the victimhood is only matched by the fact that the same demographic who feel victimised also dominate and run UK society.

Wow!!! A whole lots of rodent lovers! An entire website of hysterical like-minded people. Lucky you believe in free speech. Is it a coincidence that 99.9% of the posts agree with your views? Censorship or free speech. You really need a broader readership to give your claptrap a reality check. Your statements as if they are facts and your sycophantic followers readily accept them. Time to start the warfarin.

“When does his ever happen? When do innocent children get killed by lone gunmen demanding ‘Big Government’ or decent public sector pensions?”

The fact is that most terrorism in Europe is performed by people espousing extremist left wing or anti-capitalist ideas, but we do not hold those non-violent members of the society who demand (say) the ‘smashing of the capitalist state’ or ‘a radical solution to inequality’ or ‘an end to capitalism’ to be responsible in any way for their actions.

“And from this it follows that you should be held to account for the consequences of your anti-war rhetoric which led, by your logic, to the murders of 7/7.”

The two aren’t comparable.

There isn’t a mechanism to get from believing that the war is wrong to believing that random British civilians should be killed, unless you believe a lot of far crazier, far more significant things.

However, there is a clear mechanism to get from believing left-wingers are literally guilty of treason to believing that they should be killed. After all, a great many people who aren’t generally considered insane believe that traitors deserve to be killed…

“Rightwingers do sometimes use overblown rhetoric. However, it is usually wrong and exaggerated rhetoric about things that are actually happening. The demagogue journalists on the left exist in a paranoid permanently angry alternative reality screeching about things that do not exist. Society is not run by a secret establishment and there is no imminent takeover by a plutocracy. It is all in their febrile imaginations that feed their perpetual sense of victimhood. They really do believe that public sector workers who are usually middle aged are victims. The absurdity of the victimhood is only matched by the fact that the same demographic who feel victimised also dominate and run UK society.”

See how daft this sort of handwaving looks when it is not pandering to your prejudices?

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

Saul Alinksy, Rules For Radicals.

Well, there must be some explanation for why out of a 1500 page document full of references to everyone from Churchill to Burke, Liberal Conspiracy is only interested in Melanie Phillips. Right?

“The two aren’t comparable.There isn’t a mechanism to get from believing that the war is wrong to believing that random British civilians should be killed”

The 7/7/ bombers thought there was. Off course they were crazy, but then so is this Norwegian imbecile.

“However, there is a clear mechanism to get from believing left-wingers are literally guilty of treason to believing that they should be killed. ”

Only if you are a loon. See above.

“After all, a great many people who aren’t generally considered insane believe that traitors deserve to be killed…”

Including many who think that Tony Blair is a war criminal for, er, going to war in Iraq. Actually, I think FR may be one of those and you may be yourself, although you might prefer permanent incarceration as punishment rather than death. But what is someone who listens to the logic of the ‘war criminal’ rhetoric and despairs of ever seeing justice done through the system to do? They cannot imprison Blair and his cabinet. If they take matters into their own hands, who is responsible? After all, many apparently otherwise sane people on these threads would not agree that a crime had been committed if Blair was killed by an anti war protester who held he was a war criminal.

“41 – Once again, that inversion doesn’t work. Try reading it back to yourself to find out why.”

It does work Neil. It only looks obviously wrong to you because it does not satisfy your prejudices. There are many on the right who think in precisely this way. Read a Richard Littlejohn column sometime and see.

“Lefties do sometimes use overblown rhetoric. However, it is usually wrong and exaggerated rhetoric about things that are actually happening.”

Yes, and mass immigration is happening. 9/11 happened. It’s usually not the facts that are in dispute but the interpretation of them.

Are cuts a necessary corrective to a deficit run out of control or a sadistic exercise in stealing from the poor in order to keep bankers in clover? Was the invasion of Iraq a noble attempt to bring democracy to the middle east or a cynical oil grab? Is immigration a desirable broadening of our culture or an existential threat to the survival of our people? Is Islamist terrorism a demented reactionary scourge or an inevitable response to decades of Western imperialism?

To claim that the left sometimes gets too passionate about real things while the right simply lives in a virtual world of its own diseased imagination is almost comically partisan. Both sides have a point and both sides have their fair share of embittered nutters.

Let me be very clear then – I’m talking about the self-declared internet anti-Jihadists, in the form of Mel, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, the nuts at Gates of Vienna and everyone within their little ecosphere of pant-pissing fearmongers.

But you seem to be implying that the ‘logical conclusion’ is the murder of Norwegian teenagers…

I’m implying nothing. I’m stating outright that the logical conclusion of the situation she and her pals portray – that of a west that has been left defenceless by Marxist collusion with Islamists, in order to facilitate the takeover, subjection and possible genocide of Europe by same – is that “resisting” this theoretical takeover is literally a matter of life and death, and that action must be taken – action that is almost always very vague and non-specific.

What form of “resistance” do you imagine would be appropriate against treason, invasion and genocide, Torquil? There are historical precedents that are, not coincidentally, often cited by posters and commenters at these websites, but the counter-jihadists usually prefer to leave the question hanging.

What? Start more blogs? Vote BNP? Internment? They seldom say, which leaves it up to the reader to decide.

This is not the same as using your magical Wingnut-beams to brainwash murderous nutters. On the other hand, there are serious question marks over how responsible it is to disseminate racist and hatemongering propaganda for political gain, and when push comes to shove – as it does when we’ve got real-world violence to contend with – the time comes when you have to man up and stand behind your work.

If Mel et al are so confident they’re right, let them say so in stark terms, rather than wailing about victimisation. If they’re so sure they’re correct, put ’em on national television and let them explain it to Paxman or even Kay Burley.

I wouldn’t expect or advocate for anything more but a period of serious scrutiny is certainly the least I’d anticipate resulting from these events. I’d expect it to utterly discredit them all as hysterics, bullshitters and idiots.

(1) Political rhetoric is extremely hightened on all sides, which is why this site has published articles from disability campaigners accusing the government of ‘eugenics’, Ken Clarke of being pro-rape, etc

(2) Much as I dislike ‘Cultural Marxism’ thats because it reduces everything to a single human relationship (exploitation) and philosophy to a single method (dialectics): it has fuck all to do with race or immigration. Marx himself thought the was no less racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc. than his contemporaries.

I actually agree with you that words and concepts can be inverted to apply to different contexts. The difference is when the likes of Galloway delivers an overblown rant. Lefties or liberals will present arguments against him. Hell will freeze over before before someone prominent on the right challenges the rantings and worldview of Philips and Littlejohn. It is one thing to disagree with the methods of Anders Breivik. However, how much difference is there between him and you ( not you personally) when you share the same paranoid worldview. It is not enough to be appalled at his actions. How about someone on the right challenging all his points of view and assertions?

Liberal Conspiracy are quite right as far as I am concerned,to suggest the the wider community of belief or opinion, from which terrorists, come should be held to account. The question is what community and how wide before it becomes comically inappropriate.

Example 1 Sinn Fein and the IRA – It is clear that terrorism committed by the paramilitary wing can be associated with its political wing and by extension all those who support and consort with them
I think it is also fair to say the Labour Party, the London Labour Party especially, have been vocal supporters of Irish Nationalism and its left wing/ Marxist ideology. Ken Livingstone can justifiably be associated with numerous acts of murder thereby and I have no special problem with that
They will share many beliefs in common with Nordic loving wet lefties who go on more for hand wringing and tucking pensions under the pillow. I think it would be unreasonable to continue this extended association to that point though despite the formal connection and history of sympathy.

Example 2 – Islam in the UK and the numerous bomb plots and well organised attacks on UK citizens .Is there a wider constituency of Muslim opinion that stands in relation to the 7.7 bombers as Sinn Fein does to the IRA
Well thats a good question, certainly if surveyed attitudes are to believed it is arguable at least that the community or at least large part of it are directly implicated and the level of organisation could not continue without wide-spread tacit support, exactly as the IRA.

Lets say it is a reasonable question anyway

Example 3 – The actions of a mass murderer who espouses ultra right /mystical blood and soil paranoia with this or that Daily mail columnist who expresses concern over immigration levels, multiculturalism losses of sovereignty and feels Israel is unfairly treated.
Well thats just childish as is the suggestion that ordinary Conservatives should be ashamed of their opinions. We might just as well include ordinary Social democratic opinion in with the IRA on the basis they both admire “equality” in some form.

Ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.

Therefore, reality must be suppressed.

If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts.

But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong?

If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies.

After all, many apparently otherwise sane people on these threads would not agree that a crime had been committed if Blair was killed by an anti war protester who held he was a war criminal.

I would believe that a crime had committed and I’d believe the killer was in the wrong. Just as I would if someone murdered Ian Huntley in jail, and indeed as I did when someone murdered Jeffrey Dahmer. The rule of law is important, and nobody has the right to be arrogant enough to claim superiority to it.

The difference that I think you’re missing is that believing Tony Blair is a war criminal who deserves to be punished is something that it’s sane to do (whether or not you believe it’s correct) in a way that believing a bunch of leftie schoolkids are traitors who deserve to be punished is not.

The Norwegian nutter needed to *not only* be an arrogant psychopath who considered himself above the law *but also* believe deeply insane things about his victims. The Jihad-watch types bear no responsibility for the former, but they directly shaped his worldview on the latter.

Example 2 – Islam in the UK and the numerous bomb plots and well organised attacks on UK citizens

You mean, ‘one’. There haven’t been numerous bomb plots. There have been numerous bomb scares. Which have cosistantly turned out later to be false alarms, or white right-wingers (on page 43) without being exposed as fabrications on Page 1.

Apart from the 2007 bombings, which noticeably did not trigger a wave of copy-cat mujahedin in the backstreets of Hackney, the closest there’s been to an actual, effective, bomb plot was defeated by four Glaswegians giving a good kicking to some dude who was on fire. A vast and successful domestic terror network, that ain’t.

On the other hand, there’s a list somewhere (google about a bit) of white, right-wing nutbars who were caught with bombing materials, automatic weapons, actually trying to blow up cafes, etc. and got let off or were given minimal sentences. They tend to be reported as ‘criminals’, not terrorists.

If there is any good to come of the Norwegian tragedy, it would be the disassociation of ‘terrorist’ from ‘muslim’ in our national discourse, and the application of the word to every nutjob who wants to scare, kill and maim rather than debating.

As a side effect, I’d like to see sustainability campaigners not described as ‘domestic extremists’, particularly when they explicitly condemn violent actions.

Also, I’d like to see ‘vandalism’ and ‘terrorism’ not being used as synonyms; breaking a building is not a violent crime or a terrorist act, it’s vandalism. We have laws for that already…

The Phillips article is important because it serves to explain his motive. – he killed people because he has been told that they are responsible for ‘treason’ and attempting to destroy his ‘civilization’.

The people relating it to 7/7 are not actually far wrong. We can’t be 100% sure of the 7/7 bombers’ motives but in general they believed that ‘the west’ was out to kill and oppress Muslims. – this idea was spread by numerous clerics of the Abu Hamza variety.

Presumeably out there is an Islamic Fundamentalist equivalent of Mel Phillips spreading the idea that ‘the west’ is out to destroy the bedrock of Muslim civilization.

(someone here will inevitably say that ‘the west’ does have it in for muslims – this is not true – it is not specifically muslims they are after, rather, in the minds of people like Blair, invading Iraq was an extension of action in Kosovo and the Balkans which protected muslims.)

“Very typical of this website, though, to find freedom of speech to be the enemy lurking under ever atrocity”
Why post on it then ?
or is this case of the python ” I would like a 10 minute argument please”.
The need for verbal conflict, now that is interesting

I accept that, but they’re *not on the fucking left*. They’re religious nutjobs, who happened to share one belief with many people on the left, that invading Iraq wasn’t a great idea. They’re not left-wing extremists, and anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong.

Whereas, while they don’t share the “being enough of a psycho to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner” viewpoint, the Norwegian dickhead *does* share his views with *many* right-wing extremists.

Shorter right wingers: Ordinary Muslims are complicit in Islamic terrorism because of their failure to condemn Islamic violence loudly enough, but prominent right wing commentators have no responsibility for acts of violence committed by those who agree entirely with their worldview and commit violence to try and change policy.

For what its worth I take the view that responsibility for the violence lies entirely within the mind of Mr Breivik rather than computer games, melanie phillips columns or john stuart mill. Just as responsibility for islamic terrorism lies with those who commit it rather than with the wider Muslim community, hate preachers or ancient texts.

You have quoted the ramblings of a mass murder as stating political truths about Norway without any evidence whatsoever.

There appears to be a nasty thread developing after the events at the weekend, and that is to hold onto particular ideas of this man and some how defend them or ask what is wrong with this or that?

Mein Kampf was written in the mid 1920s (I put the date so no one can say I am comparing him with the Hitler of 1945), it too is full of stupidities, crass intellectualism and lies about history and politics. Anyone reading who found it a truthful document would be heavily criticised (irrespective of religion, creed or politics).

Then why is the manifesto of a mass murderer being put forward as something other than the scribblings of a criminal killer?

weird that a mad lone gun man just decided to attack liberals and not say random passers-by. If I was a lone gun man, I would just buy a gun, head to a shopping center and shot the whole place down. I wouldnt hang out in a foreign coutry, having meetings with like minded people, forging links with other far-right and ultra-conservative groups,pour over the words of many different right-wing commentators, compose a 1,500 page manifesto,start up a front business to get the things needed for a terrorist attack and then do it. Seems like to much of a hassle when you just want to shoot people.

Tyler
Why post on it then ?
Why stress yourself ?
Make a nice cup of tea and dream of world without nasty lefties, black people and the poor,
Also you don’t see much in house fighting amongst the right in any of their blogs.
Certainly not the Coffee house or conservative home.
Maybe Guido but he is a maverick

What is Melanie Phillips calling for? Presumably it’s what she wrote in her latest Daily Mail article:

“What can be done about the relentless retreat of western societies in the face of Islamist demands for censorship of newspapers, gender segregation and a greater role for Islam in the public sphere? Simple: readers should explode diversionary bombs in city centres before heading off to youth camps to massacre as many children as possible. That’ll show ’em.”

the plain fact that our “way of life”, our culture, our values, is not under existential threat from some alien other.

It depends where you live, I guess.

I do not feel it in London, but I have two colleagues – one in his 40s from Blackburn, Lancs; the other in her fifties from Leicester – who report that the communities in which they grew up have essentially ceased to exist.
Neither is a racist, nor a nutter. Both do, however, experience the social change that has happened in their birthplaces primarily as “loss”. And both are upset that that feeling of loss is never respectfully addressed by politicians, media etc.

haven’t seen anything in the reporting about him shooting liberals. So far as I’m aware, the massacre was at a young socialists camp, wasn’t it? Were there some liberals there too?
Well that’s OK then Ian.
You have to a be a journo

Right wing blogs criticising the government are usually criticising the government for not being right wing enough. That is the problem. We do not want any government to be more left wing or right wing, we want them to be more liberal. Anders Breivik amongst other failings had an ideology based on social conservatism. The solution to the problems of social conservatism is not more conservatism.

I think Flying Rodent asks a somewhat fair question–although I’m not entirely sure why he focuses on Phillips, who by all accounts only gets a couple of mentions in the murderer’s “manifesto”. Why not ask, what are people like Edmund Burke calling for? Or, even better, why not ask, what are people like Fjordman calling for, since Fjordman is seemingly his favourite writer? But I presume that Phillips has the bigger profile at LC: no one has heard of Fjordman, and no one will get excited about Burke.

In any case, after a tragedy like this, it does make sense to look at the writings the group he associated with and to ask, Are they calling for violence? Are they likely to inspire more acts of terrorism? Of course, we want to prevent future acts of terrorism and so if they are to blame, then naturally they should be squashed into the dirt. Defend society!

On the other hand, it is extremely distasteful to be discussing a man’s politics purely on the basis of the number of innocents that he has slaughtered. Welcome to the modern world, though–right? Given our usual approach to terrorism, I await Prof Chomsky’s op-ed in the NYT explaining that the mass murderer’s grievances were legitimate, even if his means were somewhat OTT, and anyway, George W Bush is a worse terrorist with more blood on his hands, etc, etc, etc. (It was blackly humorous–only because of past experience–to read about the EDL playing the intellectual’s role of “good cop” on Newsnight: where are the Ivy League professors, explaining and legitimising the terrorists demands? The counter-jihad can only muster unemployed proles and football hooligans–not very impressive).

Or perhaps not? If we have turned a corner at last, I eagerly await the extension of this new mature programme to all the non-“counter-jihad”, “culturally-Christian” acts of terrorism that occur around the world on the regular. What, surely you can’t tell me that Edward Said hasn’t inspired any acts of violence, or Qtub, or Frantz Fanon? But that’s different, isn’t it. And anyway, consistency, hobgoblins and all that. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to iron my Che Guevara t-shirt.

It’s only been out a few days and already you can spot quotations from it!!!!

“But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong?

If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies.”

Ian: your point isn’t just offensively sixth-form debating society, it’s also factually wrong. Norwegian Labour is a centrist social democratic party, not some kind of SWP nichery; refusing to describe it as ‘liberal’ is a perversion of the English language.

The demagogue journalists on the right exist in a paranoid permanently angry alternative reality screeching about things that do not exist.

I would rather see people on the left attacking the ideas put foreward by Phillips and her like. For example, if you google the words ”Jews leave Malmo” you get pages of stuff about the ”story” that Muslims in Malmo have been harrassing Jews to the point of making many leave the city. Everyone from the Daily Telegraph to Stormfront, Mark Steyn and the Huffington Post have talked about in one way or the other. And it’s firmly in Melanie Phillips territory too. The thing is though, is it true or is it just made up?
It’s that people should be going for. What they actually say. And not just the easy stuff that is obviously exaggerated.

To tackle the message that the anti-jihadists are constantly pushing, it’s better to refute the what they actually say I think, rather than just target them as people generally.
So a good place to start would be this old chestnut of a youtube that has been around for a few years and is a staple of Melanie Phillips and the EDL. They will use this kind of thing as ”proof” of what they say about muslims changing a place when they settle in large numbers.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzLECtFT4aU

If we have turned a corner at last, I eagerly await the extension of this new mature programme to all the non-”counter-jihad”, “culturally-Christian” acts of terrorism that occur around the world on the regular.

You (and others on this thread, to be fair) may have noticed that UK governments have consistently sought to exclude Islamist preachers on the ground that their demonisation of Western culture and violent rhetoric will turn the heads of impressionable Muslims to violence to the extent that they pose a measurable security problem. When actual Islamist terrorists cite preachers as influences, it is an article of faith that those preachers are considered as preaching terrorism.

Mad Mel does *not* tell people to go out and kill people; she does however accuse everyone to her left of varying degrees of treason and “national cultural sabotage”; her words has been cited by Breivik in his manifesto as embodying and legitimising his views. Words have meanings, and consequences; they inspire actions. If they did not, her profession would be irrelevant at best. She should look very hard at what she *does* intend to achieve by her columns, and perhaps reconsider her rhetoric. She is not an Abu Hamza; but there is no way her writings could be said to reduce the rhetorical temperature.

Any attempt to interpret what, exactly, it is that Mel and all the other self-proclaimed Counter-Jihadists are calling for. That’s quite weird – I didn’t give this piece its title, but you might think that the chucklers above might address the issue of “What they’re calling for” under a post called “What Are People Like Melanie Phillips Calling For, Then?”

I mean, it’s not like “Oh whatabout George Galloway and Che Guevara” and so on are entirely off-topic. It’s just surprising that nobody fancies tackling the actual content of the post, especially given the number of people tearing around the internet explaining why “mainstream right wing thought” and “Right wing terrorism” are unrelated.

Actually, I thought that the policy of the British government for a number of years was was to offer them asylum in the UK, from where they could plan operations, raise funding and produce propaganda. Hence the title of a book by some author whose name I forget: “Londonistan”. What was the left campaigning for at that time–the end of such a policy and the arrest and deportation of all those involved?

I don’t disagree that it is fair to ask questions of Phillips, or any of the other writers who seemingly were quoted a lot more in the murderer’s idiotic “manifesto”. I’m all for the monopolisation of violence by the government. If these writers are subverting that monopoly, then they should be censured, and, yes, punished where appropriate.

But by extension, they are other people of whom we ought to be critical. And not just Muslim or Islamist preachers–there’s a lot of terrorist violence in the world, and a lot of blame to go round. I’m just proposing that we share it out a bit more equally.

flying rodent – no actually I think one person did try and answer your question… almost half-heartedly.

Ian B says:Well, call me crazy, but she may be advocating people adopting a different political position and voting for different parliamentary representatives with different policies, something like that.

But really? She’s a proud supporter of the Tory party is she? Which parliamentary representatives are you talking about here? Which party?

A fair point. So, what are the “counter-jihadists” calling for? I confess that I do not know, and have never been sufficiently interested to find out before now. According to La Wik, they are for the stopping of the “Islamicization” of America, whatever that means or entails. Unfortunately their Wiki is a stub and their website appears to be dead. So why don’t you fill us in, flying rodent?

This would require all migration from Muslim majority countries halted, as you can’t trust Muslims and they’d just lie on their forms.

So you’re looking at several extra billion pounds per annum spent on security.

Lots of people with guns, but state sanctioned people with guns, rounding up Muslim migrants (I assume generously those born here and citizesn would be left alone) domestically and at the border and sending them back wherever they think is relevant.

Now that would require scrapping all human rights legislation ever passed, but I’ve a feeling that is a feature not a bug.

There would need to be a massive detention centre, as some people would just be held indefinitely because we couldn’t work out where they’re from, or they’re a Muslim from somewhere that wold just deport them straight back.

We’d also need to remove our embassies from every Muslim country that hadn’t ejected all our staff already.

Domestically, we’d bring back the lash (hell, why not?!), eliminate benefits for single parents, and enforce a pledging of alligience to the flag as they do in America (because if nothing makes something adored and cool it is being forced to salute it every morning as a child).

Essentially a rather mean police state and some rather vulgar proto-nationalistic machismo.

Sounds horrible to me, can’t think I’d enjoy having to show my “I’m not a Muslim, I’ve even got a foreskin, look here’s a photo” ID card when asked to, but I can’t imagine another way for them to achieve what they want.

Any attempt to interpret what, exactly, it is that Mel and all the other self-proclaimed Counter-Jihadists are calling for. That’s quite weird – I didn’t give this piece its title, but you might think that the chucklers above might address the issue of “What they’re calling for” under a post called “What Are People Like Melanie Phillips Calling For, Then?”

An irony is that the more belligerent “counter-Jihadists” have been railing against Phillips, Steyn and others for some time for not proposing solutions. Their ideas – which run from cutting/ending immigration to, in some cases, voluntary/compulsory deportation – are quite frankly stated. But, in their eyes, mainstream commentators have too many liberal pretensions to advocate something so obviously authoritarian. So, they talk about a great civilisational threat but get all awkward about offering policies to ameliorate it. In some cases, this may have some truth to it.

I can see her calling for the end of Muslim immigration/immigration from Muslim countries, but surely Phillips wouldn’t call for Muslim citizens to be deported–that would set off all kinds of alarm bells in the grown-up’s media. I don’t read her stuff though–Can you link to an article?

Well, Smellanie Pissflaps and her ilk clearly intend for other races and religious groupings to be the targets of such attacks .. hence their disingenuous protestations that THIS clearly wasn’t what they were calling for.

Basically, anit-Jihadists seem to be only able to achieve what they want with a massive increase in violence.

I don’t mean violence in the “taxation is theft” mould, rather the “armed gunmen kidnapping you in the dead of night and sending you to another country” sort of thing.

Now this violence will be organised by the state, which has a legitimate monopoly in the exercise of violence, but the idea that those demanding one form of violence provoke an different sort should not be entirely surprising.

John Q Publican-ou mean, ‘one’. There haven’t been numerous bomb plots. There have been numerous bomb scares. Which have cosistantly turned out later to be false alarms, or white right-wingers (on page 43) without being exposed as fabrications on Page 1.

Not sure what you are on about there John in the last decade half a dozen righty nuts have been convicted of possessing explosives or weapons all of them loners and fantasists .In the same period 138 Muslims have been convicted of Islam related terrorism including the plot to plough aircraft through populated American cities for example which involved large numbers land a high level of organisation.
it is wrong , surely to pretend these are comparable problems
I understand the wish not to collectively demonise any group but when does that stray into being an apologist prepared to play fast and loose with facts that will; not fit.

One thing this case has shown me, though, is that (if you’re a commentator with influence, anyway) it’s irresponsible to diagnose a problem without offering solutions. If you say “X is dangerous” but don’t give at least a hint as to how one could challenge it you’re leaving the decision to people who might be far less reasonable/humane than yourselves.

So, those of us who are concerned about policies that might be termed “multicultural” should set out what the problem is and how it could be dealt with. Those of us who oppose wars/conspiracies should offer positive channels for the anger they inspire. It’s all very well to sneer at bland progressivism but our readers, if we have any, may not be so peaceable in their dissatisfaction.

Reading this discussion, at it moves into its constructive phase (what does Melanie Phillips want?), I’m reminded of Friedrich Hayek’s ironic dedication of The Road to Serfdom, “to the socialists of all parties”. Charitably, you could argue that Phillips is adopting a Hayek-like strategy: she thinks there are people in all the main political parties who have got things badly wrong when it comes to the various issues she bundles together under the heading of “Western Civilisation”, and she’s prepared to use hyperbole to draw attention to this (just as the implication of Hayek’s hyperbolical argument was that to elect the Attlee government would be to put the UK inexorably on the path to some kind of totalitarianism).

In general, I agree with the thrust of this post (as I agree with pretty much everything the Rodent writes). I think Phillips’ rhetoric is disgraceful, and I think in light of what happened in Norway the other day, she ought to take a good, hard look at herself, and I’m glad that John Brissenden has put her post-7/7 piece back in to circulation, so we can begin to take the measure of her hypocrisy.

But if I were going to mount a defence, the comparison with Hayek (incidentally, another of ABB’s heroes, and cited much more extensively than Mel P) would be where I’d pitch my tent.

They’ve had some hard times over bloody stupid attempts to inflate their membership numbers, and some of the people involved may or may not also hold leftist views – but the organisation is anti-racist. It may make more sense if I mention they are publicly speaking out against islamophobia AND anti-semmitism?

Which, by joining it, he’d have seen pretty quickly. But that’d require dealing more with hard facts and less with mythology.

No, I quite agree. I don’t find terrorism surprising. It is depressingly familiar. But I am interested in reading a articles by the counter-jihadist clique that support your claims about their objectives. Some googling threw up the following exchange between Phillips and the Christian fundamentalist writer Lawrence Auster: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006008.html

In it, Auster criticises Phillips for her liberalism, her soft stance on Islam in general, and her refusal to call for end to Muslim immigration and the deportation of Britain’s Muslims. Of course, this may well be a measure of Auster’s extremism rather than Phillips’ moderate attitude to Islam, but still it does suggest that Phillips at any rate does not map 1-to-1 on the counter-jihadist ideology, if that is what the counter-jihadists believe.

The counter-jihadis constantly use the most heightened and hysterical rhetoric: war, cultural annihilation, genocide, enslavement, the obliteration of western civilization, cosmic battles of good-versus-evil, etc..

Well then, how do you expect people to react if they take this stuff at face value? Obviously most readers very quickly realise that it’s just farts in the wind. But if someone of a susceptible mind reads this sort of material and comes to the conclusion that yes indeed, they, their family, and the whole of their culture and civilization are staring down the barrel of total and utter destruction, then how the hell would you expect them to react?

What I would never do is deny is society is changing and things happen that pisses off Philips et al. She is entitled to believe whatever she wants to believe. What I would criticise is the conspiratorial mindset that exists among some on the right and some journalists tap into that mindset because there is a ready audience to believe whatever they say. I read some on the left in different ways who also see patterns in completely unconnected events. Psychologists have known for years that the human mind sees patterns where none exist.

It is the way that the likes of Philips sees random events as somehow connected by someone pulling the strings ‘ the left ‘ and driving a concerted and organised plan. Gays get rights and immigration increases- teenage childbirth increases and more people live with each other rather than get married. Some Muslims call for sharia law, so there must be an agenda to turn the UK into a Muslim caliphate. Her problem is English law does even apply all over the UK. Scots law applies in Scotland and even the Orkney and Shetland Isles have Norse law for some things. So even using sharia law for some things would hardly be a unique event in the UK . All those things are just consequences of a changing world and it is change that she does not like. Therefore, there must be someone with bad intentions controlling all the disparate changes.

76. flyingrodent

“What Are People Like Melanie Phillips Calling For, Then? ”

What they are calling for is a return to a mythical past when things were more to their liking. They do not like the modern world and wish it would all just go away. History is full of these Cassandra’s warning us to turn back from our godless ways and return to simpler gentle times. We used to call them prophets and built religions around them, we now call them newspaper columnists.

Significant that only once in this entire thread does the word ‘democracy’ appear (in the context of the middle east…), with three uses of ‘democratic’, two to describe a social democratic position.

I think there is an answer to the title question of what Ms Phillips and her ilk want, which is change by democratic means. I have not seen any indication (and I admit I do not read her writing at all often – her tone is insufferably rightous and her ability to spot opportunities to think rather limited) that Ms Phillips, the only person we can judge the title on, opposes democracy. Someone using a gun on others to make a political message clearly does. Simple difference. However much you preach hatred and spit bile, if you indicate the wish to implement your changes within a democratic framework, you cannot be blamed for the actions of idiots who excerpt part of your message and use it to justify actions outside of that framework. Ms Phillips message might be unpleasant and wrong (I think it is) but unless someone adapted all of it, it can hardly be said to be her fault what some idiot did with bits of it. After all, you have not even established that Ms Phillips thinks her anti-Marxist/Islamicist stance is more important than her commitment to democracy (which is I suspect one of the values she is apparently defending…).

In effect, suggesting that Ms Phillips was calling for the killing of Norweigian teenagers is like saying it was the writers that Johann Hari plagiarised that were responsible for his actions. Plain and bloody stupid.

What they are calling for is a return to a mythical past when things were more to their liking. They do not like the modern world and wish it would all just go away. History is full of these Cassandra’s warning us to turn back from our godless ways and return to simpler gentle times. We used to call them prophets and built religions around them, we now call them newspaper columnists.

I’m cautious about ridiculing anti-modern sentiment, though. Not just ‘cos I dislike “multicultural” policies more than most people in this thread but because I’m sure it’s apply to some of their opinions too. Spiked is full of jeremiads against the “luddism” and “neo-malthusianism” of people who think that, y’know, more people with fewer resources might be dangerous, or using up our oil reserves at the pace that Homer Simpson drains a crate of duff may not be wise.

Thanks for those points, guys. @Larry – that’s exactly the point I’m making.

See, I’m quite aware that Mel herself would entirely deny being in favour of, say, mass deportations, imprisonment of ethnic minorities or a total lockdown on immigration; in fact, only the stupidest of the foremost Counter-Jihad loons would endorse such positions. I actually think many of them would deny it because they actually wouldn’t like to see these things happen in their own nations.

Which is rather fucking odd, given that so many of them are telling their readers that “Muslims” represent a massive collective bloc with malign and dangerous designs on their nations, their homes and their very lives.

All that fearmongering about the Islamisation of Europe; All that “the leftist EUSSR is a Jihado-Marxist plot against hearth and home”; All that Nazi-Islamic imagery, it all says something very, very clearly – that it’s World War 2, the Nazis are back and it’s time to grab yer shootin’ iron.

After all, the last time Europe was faced with the threat of fascist invasion, domination and genocide, we destroyed entire cities with firebombs and nuclear weapons; sent millions of our youngsters to fight and die in a total war to the death against evil; risked everything and did things that horrified us, all of it to rescue civilisation.

If you’re pushing the case that today, we face a similarly mortal, life-or-death struggle, it’s a bit of a stark tonal shift to then stop and say But of course we must respond in a measured fashion and not go over the top.

Not go over the top? This is War against fascism etc. etc.!

Shorter – if you don’t literally mean To the barricades, the seventh Panzer legion arrives in Colchester at dawn!, then what the fuck are you doing telling people that that’s the case? How do you expect them to react?

Ian B’s message 42 sums it up very nicely.
So much so I hope he won’t mind me repeating it for those who prefer to talk around the obvious:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

Saul Alinksy, Rules For Radicals.

Well, there must be some explanation for why out of a 1500 page document full of references to everyone from Churchill to Burke, Liberal Conspiracy is only interested in Melanie Phillips. Right?

What alarms me is how Saul Alinsky’s taking credit for age-old political – and, indeed, interpersonal – behaviour. Glenn Beck going after Van Jones; Andrew Brietbart going after Shirley Sherrod; any interventionist in the history of ever (well, since the mid-1960s) going after Chomsky…Were they all reading Rules for Radicals or is it just the inevitable – if unsalutary – consequence of tribalisatic politics?

I disagree. I’ve only once or twice read the likes of Melanie Phillips (and then only on her deranged, although popular, view of education), but I think that it is possible to be fundamentally opposed to something and feel threatened by that thing, and therefore write potently about stopping that thing, yet not advocate anything but lawful resistance.

Imagine if a nutter went on the rampage in the City, would members of the left (who might in this hypothetical be quoted by the aforementioned terrorist) have to answer for their polemic? No. So, however, much Mel P is obnoxious, she only has to answer to truth and reason (to which she may fall foul), not the inciting of these crimes.

<blockquote.Actually, I thought that the policy of the British government for a number of years was was to offer them asylum in the UK, from where they could plan operations, raise funding and produce propaganda.

No, that was their *obligation* to asylum-seekers under treaty embodied in British law; although they tried to get out from under even that.

Their *policy* was/is to exclude those seeking visas where legally possible; al-Qaradawi, for example, was refused a visa in 2008 having been allowed in in 2004. At the time of the refusal, one Mr Cameron called for a ban on entry not only for him, but for all “preachers of hate”; referencing Blair’s own rhetoric in a similar vein:

The point is this; if it is right that words used by Islamist preachers are so effective in creating terrorism that their presence in this country is not conducive to the public good, why does the same logic not apply to the counter-jihadists?

I do not feel it in London, but I have two colleagues – one in his 40s from Blackburn, Lancs; the other in her fifties from Leicester – who report that the communities in which they grew up have essentially ceased to exist.
Neither is a racist, nor a nutter. Both do, however, experience the social change that has happened in their birthplaces primarily as “loss”. And both are upset that that feeling of loss is never respectfully addressed by politicians, media etc.

Why would a person living in London, of all places, not recognise these experiences? Communities like Lambeth, where I live, Southall, Golders Green, etc, have changed considerably over the past 100 years. And communities all over London, just like in the rest of the country, continue to evolve in response to a number of social and economic factors, including migration. Some people experience these processes positively, some negatively, and addressing the negative side is an important task in public policy. Peddling spittle-flecked, paranoid fantasies of a hostile Muslim takeover of the entire continent – which have no basis in fact or rationality – is exactly the wrong response to the negative side of demographic change as experienced by people like those you mention.

However much you preach hatred and spit bile, if you indicate the wish to implement your changes within a democratic framework, you cannot be blamed for the actions of idiots who excerpt part of your message and use it to justify actions outside of that framework.

“From reading his writings, Watchman is a paedophile and a terrorist. I think we should change the law using democratic means so we can hang Watchman for being a paedophile and a terrorist, and that nobody should take the law into his own hands. However, his address is 111 Madeup Gardens, West Cheam”.

These murders were justified by a world view reinforced by the writings of Mel Phillips. It may not make her culpable for the murders but surely it should at least give her some pause for reflection. She does seem blithely indifferent to the effect her extravagant rhetoric may have on the violent and impressionable reader. This is not a plea for censorship. It is a plea for personal responsibility. Isn’t that something conservatives usually claim to support?

Why would a person living in London, of all places, not recognise these experiences?

This, I think, is off-base. Londinium was invented as a place that people came to, not a place that they were born – Romans and Britons alike. The same’s been true throughout its later history, as Huguenots, Jews, black people and Muslims have turned up – and more importantly, as people from elsewhere in the UK and Ireland have come in. London, unlike most places in the UK, is a city founded on outsiders and sustained by outsiders – always has been and always will be.

Whereas a government policy that allows a small town (previously populated by the descendants of people who’ve lived in its catchment area for centuries) to increase in size by 30% through controlled immigration organised by factory owners of people from related villages in specific overseas communities is definitely different. And is why the places where that happened are the places in the UK that tend to be crucibles for racist movements (on both sides – it’s no coincidence that the 7/7 bombers mostly grew up and met up in Yorkshire towns, not London).

[87] “Minimise muslims here while not revoking citizenship which would be byond the pale” – well I’m no expert, having read very little of her stuff (although I have a strange feeling I should know more based on the endless attributes made to her by her detractors) but of the few bits I have come across isn’t Mel saying something slightly different (on the question of expulsion)?

With regard to what she calls the ‘liberal paradox’ – see link at [28] – her views seem to go something like this.

Liberals value all cultures equally so that when views or practices imported from elsewhere clash with liberal aspirations liberals sometimes find themselves in a bind as to what, if anything, should be done about it?

An obvious example is the burqua (since we are presently discussing muslims). In the minds of many rational thinkers the burqa has come to symbolise all that is wrong about the treatment of women through an oppressive, sexist and outmoded religious lens – yet liberals (Mel might argue) are terrified of calling a spade a spade for fear of being called racist (one of the most serious accusations than can be leveled against a liberal).

Mel (in the clip linked to) says the UK should welcome immigrants BUT the onus should be on them to adopt to societal norms – now of course, I’m not saying Mel is right, because to a certain extent I am playing devils advocate, but isn’t there a difference between expulsion and the idea that immigrant communities should accept what is broadly regarded as British culture which in some cases might mean abandoning traditions that do not sit easily with the liberal mindset (such as the burqa)?

Of course we cannot say so in so many words as a lack of tolerance would not be very liberal either (hence the paradox) – some liberals, I suspect, are inclined to internalise such binds perhaps feeling slightly angry about it without finding an acceptable avenue to vent these frustrations – a bind partially eased by our beloved internet?

Alinsky didn’t invent the rules, but he codified them in a nicely quotable way. A strong argument can be made that the triumph of Christianity in Rome was a consequence of implementing the “rules for radicals” and strategems we paranoid nutjobs now call “Gramscian” (forging malleable alliance between various disadvantaged groups etc). Anyway, the point of quoting it was to point out that LC are quite blatantly going after Phillips according to this particular strategy.

RL: Ah, the exogeneity excuse. Funny, is it not (on reflection, probably not), that there is no “Paristan”, or “Berlinistan”? Presumably, this is mere coincidence, and nothing at all to do with policy, institutions or culture. I mean, I thought we were going to take a grown-up approach from now on. Or does that only apply to right-wing terrorism?

My guess is that in 2026, when the counter-jihadist movement is responsible for as many acts of terrorism as the jihadist movement is now, the British government will be sufficiently moved to do something about it. But until a lot more people have died, here and elsewhere, I wouldn’t advise holding one’s breath.

“Melanie Phillips and the gaggle of paranoids that make up the internet’s nutty ‘Counter-Jihad’ movement are loudly insisting that they don’t advocate acts of violence or terrorism.
It isn’t good enough to pimp this fear mongering lunacy then disown the crazy actions of your ideological stable mates.”

Before the last election the greatest trick the right wing press achieved was convincing the country that it had been unacceptable to have a reasonable discussion about immigration. In my life time I have never actually known this to be the case ‘reasonable discussion about immigration’ has always been allowed but by promoting this paranoia what they have created is a situation where a friend of mine (she’s French) has been told to “Fuck of back to her own country”, by complete strangers in the street, twice in a week. The flood gates have been opened and right wing, fascist, and racist language is now acceptable, and if you challenge it you are accused of some sort of oppression.

Combine this acceptance of racist language, with the repression caused by a failing economy, and this is a recipe for disaster; Islamaphobia has become the preset for all the nations media when an attack is carried out by right wing terrorists, they are described as lone mad men, yet when it is carried out by Muslimists they are part of a Islamic take over. There have been more terrorist attacks in this country by lone right wing mad men, than by Muslimists.

Peddling spittle-flecked, paranoid fantasies of a hostile Muslim takeover of the entire continent – which have no basis in fact or rationality – is exactly the wrong response to the negative side of demographic change as experienced by people like those you mention.

Here’s the problem: the future is radically unpredicatable. However, we are also required, in the present, to try to create the future and predict the consequences of current actions. We are nearly always wrong, but we have to try.

Nobody knows what Europe will be like in 50, or 100 years time. But large scale islamisation is a plausible possibility. It is plausible that, for instance, there may be large entirely muslim areas or enclaves. Or maybe not. We don’t know. It may be that 50 years from now, people will be laughing at the Islamophobic paranoia; or they may be calling the likes of Phillips canaries in the coal mine who were catastrophically ignored.

I don’t, personally, believe that the future is an “Islamic Europe”. But I could be wrong. You cannot dismiss the possibility as having “no basis in fact or rationality”. It is possible.

Try this. Imagine suggesting to a Roman in AD100 that Rome would become a Christian empire. He would have called you mad. But it happened.

The basic problem humans always face is this; to stop the hammer blow, you must stop it when it is still in the air. You only have proof of what was going to happen after it is too late to stop it.

But what if migrants won’t assimilate to the particular world view people like Mel want?

That is where the deportations come in surely. Unless an existential crisis for Western Civilisation is allowed to run its course. Surely?

My position on Islam is that it is a stupid religion and that subsequent generation will be less fundamentalist and more secular as time goes on, so that. Much as Christianity is dying off and the West si becoming more secular.

The real Liberal Paradox seems to be that liberals think being a liberal is rubbish and that as soon as a repressive, nonsense based belief system based on the rantings of some long dead quasi-fictional character turns up we’re all going to be overwhelmed.

You can either follow your parents and adhere to a belief system with little practical value or you can look at the entire canon of western and eastern belief systems and pick whats works, while also listening to Led Zeppelin, taking drugs, drinking and having casual sex (while using protection obviosuly). Islam hasn’t a chance, perhaps that is why this particular “demographic time bomb” doesn’t worry me.

I suggest Rodent watches the last video of Mohammad Sadiq Khan. Some of the comments about the ‘occupation of Muslim lands’ and Israeli violence are remarkably similar to the websites of Respect, STWC, Socialist Worker etc. A dishonest troublemaker could look to score political points by saying the anti-war movement created the ‘mood music’ for people like Khan and their proclaimed grievances.

Did non-violent socialist commentators bear responsibility for the violence of the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades and the rest? A troll could say they were part of the same ‘movement’, but it still feels like a nasty smear. Talking of inflammatory language, ever heard Rodent condemn the kinds of extreme anti-cuts rhetoric that leads to protestors burning effigies of Cameron and Clegg, whilst fighting the police?

All that aside, there might be a case for the discussion of the kind of ‘mood music’ we have in this country. I think this has already started but don’t see what can be gained from such blatantly political enterprises in hypocrisy. Because that’s what Rodent is doing here – playing a game.

While I agree that in the long-run, we’re probably all headed for some Hegelian “utopia” of post-cultural last men, mumbling into their vodka-red bulls and wanking off to GTA XCIX–the end of religion! the triumph of liberalism! yay!–the process of getting from here to there deserves some thought. What if, as Olivier Roy observes (and I, for what it’s worth, agree with), Islamic fundamentalism represents the vehicle of Islamic secularisation, and not merely the kind of thing that get’s wannabe tough liberals and defenders of society like Phillips and fam excited?

A final paradox is that the reformation of Islam as a mere religion is carried out not only by believers who want to secularise their religion (that is, moderate Muslims), but also by the very ones who deny any delinking of religion, state and society. To be provocative, I would say that the in-depth secularisation of Islam is being achieved by people who are denying the very concept of secularism. ‘Secular’ Muslims are not the actors of secularisation, because they are not involved in the process of reforming or shaping the community. The real secularists are the Islamists and neofundamentalists, because they want to bridge the gap between religion and a secularised society by exacerbating the religious dimension, over-stretching it to the extent that it cannot become a habitus by being embedded in a real culture. This over-stretching of religion, after a period of paroxysmal parousia (for example, the Islamic revolution of Iran, or any given jihad), necessarily leads to a new schism: politics is the ultimate dimension of any religious state, and the death of jihad waged out of a concrete strategy, nation or social fabric. What resurfaces is politics, in the case of Iran, but also religion as a multifaceted practice, hence the heterogeneous dimension of Islamic revivalism. redefining Islam as a ‘pure’ religion and leaves politics to work alone.

Islam is experiencing secularisation, but in the name of fundamentalism. It is a bit confusing for everybody, which is quite logical so far as religion is concerned and so long as God will let humans speak on his behalf. Secularisation is the unexpected but logical destiny of any mediator of a religious fundamentalism that happens to be taken seriously by a whole nation or society, from Martin Luther to Ruhollah Khomeinni.

Don’t be a berk. I can’t prove the future. There are some things that could happen, that is all we can say.

The “hammer” was just a metaphor for the problem of having to prevent things before they occur, rather than a hammer as a violent metaphor. You know that. As it goes, I got it from GK Chesterton when he was writing about the danger of a eugenic state. That didn’t happen as it turned out, or at least only a bit, we now know. But it was certainly possible at the time he was writing. You see the point, there?

The BNP has had some of its biggest (relative) electoral successes in East London. The London nail bomber was from this city, as were the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, as were those most likely to be responsible for the New Cross fire and countless other racist crimes that have taken place within the borders of the M25. London, sadly, has proven itself perfectly capable of acting as a “crucible for racist movements” and racist actions. Your attempt at a sociological theory doesn’t stack up, as anyone remotely familiar with the recent history of racism in Britain would know.

While I agree that in the long-run, we’re probably all headed for some Hegelian “utopia” of post-cultural last men, mumbling into their vodka-red bulls and wanking off to GTA XCIX–the end of religion! the triumph of liberalism! yay!

A worryingly accurate summary of my last comment… you forgot the bit about us all being employed in worker managed firms.

I’m not very worried by fundamentalist religion because it isn’t very popular and demands such sacrifices from its adherents that it is unlikely to become so, ever. So and at worst any problems it will cause me (apart from the astonishingly unlikely chance of being in a terrorist attack) is way into the future.

However, very real improvements to people’s lives can be made through no sacrifice on my part by simply letting them into this country, even if their views are a bit nutty, they’ll mostly leave me alone, as they’ll never be a constitutency large enough to influence policy.

[114] “The real Liberal Paradox seems to be that liberals think being a liberal is rubbish and that as soon as a repressive, nonsense based belief system based on the rantings of some long dead quasi-fictional character turns up we’re all going to be overwhelmed” – thats a good question, the obvious point is why.

I tend to agree that lifestyle choices associated with consumerism (rather than a liberal philosophy, per se) will win out in the long run – in fact there will be little need to enforce aculturation because young asians, east europeans, or whatever will be just as easily manipulated by who, or whatever it is that replaces Rupert Murdoch.

The fear (of Islam) I think might be related to a level of fanaticism akin to Japanese kamikaze pilots? – some of the manifestations (suicide bombings, public stonings, etc) are still shocking, even in an age when most of us have become accustomed to hearing all of the bad things that go on in the world.

Or looking at in another way which country stands out as being the best advert for a society organised on Islamic principles? – and if it’s not easy to think of a particular country what does it say about certain cultures that have failed to develop strong secular institutions, thinking particularly about education and the law?

“From reading his writings, Watchman is a paedophile and a terrorist. I think we should change the law using democratic means so we can hang Watchman for being a paedophile and a terrorist, and that nobody should take the law into his own hands. However, his address is 111 Madeup Gardens, West Cheam”.

Nice point, but you would still need to prove that Ms Phillips was doing the equivalent of providing an address for the crime, which is the key missing part here.

PS I presume you were not serious – if you are, God am I glad you got my address wrong (it’s 121…)

It needn’t be paranoid or bigoted to be concerned about Islamic immigration. (Although I admit that I’d have once insisted that it was.) Critics of “counter-Jihadists” are correct to point out that Muslims are a tiny minority but (a) it’s evident that continued immigration and higher birthrates are ensuring that they’re a growing one and (b) it rather begs the question of whether their populousness is relevant. And, considering that they’re migrating from nations where our “extremism” is their “perfectly conventional” its reasonable to fear the growth of such ideas and attitudes.

There is, of course, a massive range of rational, irrational and downright hideous opinions that could fit within the scope of that “concern” but while we oppose the latter it’d be wrongheaded to avoid the former.

The thing is that, pace LO, being in a liberal society can be rubbish. Yes, lots of migrants find that they actually enjoy being in a place where people can do and say pretty much as they feel – I hope thousands more come round to that way of thinking. But I can also imagine that a religious bloke from a religious country would be horrified with a place where every convention of his ethics are flouted and his values are treated with something like contempt. (I don’t sympathise with him or her ‘cos I don’t like those ethics but I can understand how you might feel if you held them.) While I hope that this applies to as few people as can be, it would be condescending to imagine their beliefs are little more than tastes; to be discarded as soon as some new fashion comes along.

Any attempt to interpret what, exactly, it is that Mel and all the other self-proclaimed Counter-Jihadists are calling for. ”

That’s because, as I pointed out earlier, the question is entirely rhetorical and without content. There is no such category as ‘people like Melanie Phillips’ that is calling for anything. You may as well ask ‘what are people like Flying Rodent calling for’? Well what ARE they calling for. Depends on what we mean by ‘people like’? Well, you know, those who are committed anti-war activists who are highly critical of Israel’s policies in Gaza, so, maybe, Ahmadenijad, Galloway, FR, and David Irving? See how it works?

if, on the other hand, you asked a question with content, such as ‘what is Melanie Phillips calling for’ it would be easy to answer because she is explicit about it in her many articles, broadcasts and campaigns. That it is why it is obvious that the intention here is to smear and not to et to anything concrete and why you won’t get the answer you want.

[125] “But I can also imagine that a religious bloke from a religious country would be horrified with a place where every convention of his ethics are flouted and his values are treated with something like contempt. (I don’t sympathise with him or her ‘cos I don’t like those ethics but I can understand how you might feel if you held them.)” – indeed, given that Islam and liberalism seem diametrically opposed, I imagine some people must become adept at riding two bikes during visits to the family’s country of origin?

Worker owned firms, eh? I take it all back. I love The Future, and want to thank if for all it’s done for us.

I expect that fundamentalist Islam will continue to be the dominant form of Islam in the West, just as fundamentalist Christianity will continue to be the dominant form of Christianity. The liberal / secularised variants will deteriorate and become even more sclerotic (hard as that is to imagine), although I expect that they will remain popular with all the usual right-thinking institutions. These trends are part and parcel of the liberalisation of western societies, and not antithetical to the process as is sometimes claimed.

Now, these segments of the population may well remain small relative to the whole, but it’s obviously not true that they will have no influence on policy. They already have influence on policy–admittedly this is more true of the Muslim fundies than the Christian, though perhaps this will change if we get a wave of copy-cat attacks from like minded wannabes and they acquire some interested establishment parties who can play the role of good cop with a bit more weight than yr average EDL spokesman.

I suppose I find the idea that we should not be worried at all a bit odd, given the events of the last few days. Statistically of course, you’re right that you’re unlikely to be a victim of a terrorist attack. Still, one imagines that it’s not much comfort to the relatives of the poor bastards slaughtered on Utoya Island.

So, anyway, open question: should we be more worried about jihadist terrorism, or counter-jihadist terrorism, or neither?

Very simple Sunny: All they’re asking for is when you expect me to make room and allowances for you, I’d want the same treatment in return. Your right to do whatever you want, however you live, whatever you eat must not affect my right to do the same. <THAT.

Nice point, but you would still need to prove that Ms Phillips was doing the equivalent of providing an address for the crime, which is the key missing part here.

Well come on, watchman the dots are all but joined up. People like Mel P have droning on for God knows how long about ‘Liberal elites’ this and ‘the Left’ that and ‘Political Correctness’ the next thing. Christ last week she ascribed the collaspe of British values to the BBC. Everything she has ever said about anyone she does not approve of in in the vilest terms possible.

Her and her ilk have singled out the ‘Left’ for the type of odium that most decent people would reserve for child molesters.

She is one sick puppy in my book and I wouldn’t wipe my arse with a ‘newspaper’ with this womans views in it.

Er, where did you get the idea that fundamentalist Christianity is the dominant form of that religion in ‘the west’? It’s not even the dominant form of that religion in the USA, and given that there are over 30 million of them there, that’s most of the ones in ‘the west’. There are 38,000 denominations within Christianity and most of them are in no way fundamentalist.

In Britain, the dominant (and constitutionally established!) form of Christianity is liberal Anglicanism.

In Africa, which is a society just leaving its medieval era, Christianity does tend to look at bit like Calvin with access to Charismatic doctrines. Less so China. While Catholicism is certainly the dominant Christianity in Southern America, it is by no means all, or even mostly, ‘fundamentalist’ in the terms you seem to be using; Catholic Liberation theology began in Southern America.

Basically, your analysis of Christianity is just flat wrong.

Also, your analysis of Islam; there are perhaps 8% of all Muslims that would qualify as ‘fundamentalist’. It’s just that the countries they live in (Arabian nations, Pakistan, some bits of Africa) are the ones in the news. Check out far-eastern Islam, and how overwhelming the numerical superiority of moderates is there.

That’s why the fundamentalists are blowing shit up; they’re losing. They wouldn’t need to campaign against secularisation if it wasn’t seriously eating into their status, power and membership with each generation.

@60 / @89. My comment is a response to the title, what do “people like Melanie Phillips” want? That is, if it isn’t an army of neo-Nazi terrorists to save us from Eurabia?

My answer would be the rule of law.

I make no comment on whether SOS Rasisme is truly an extreme left-wing movement. I think within the definition of “left-wing” used by ABB, it probably is, but your definition is most likely very different to his. But it certainly was taxpayer-funded until quite recently, and led by someone who since took a major role in government, as your own Wikipedia link will tell you. So that specific claim is true. Much of the rest of what he wrote in that part of the “manifesto” seems quite plausible to me based on my own experience of British cities, where authorities, terrified of accusations of racism, are very selective in their prosecution of gang activity. This demonstrates weakness in the rule of law. The shocking fact is that something can be written in a killer’s manifesto, or indeed the Daily Mail, and **also be true**.

Actually what I wrote was that fundamentalist Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity, not religion, in the West, and that fundamentalist Islam was the dominant form of Islam in the West, not the East. If you think that liberal Anglicanism is the dominant form of Christianity, or even religion, in this country, I can only infer that you are not a Christian, and haven’t been to a Church for many years. Presumably, you also believe in the tooth fairy, and are interested in buying some of these AAA rated CDO tranches?

I got this sort of thing from reading academics like Philip Jenkins, Olivier Roy, and so on. When I want to understand a phenomenon, I first look to people who have studied it extensively. What do you do? Go with your instincts? That said, if you have a better analysis, and even some data, I’m all ears. Or eyes. Or whatever.

@131. John Q. Publican: “Also, your analysis of Islam; there are perhaps 8% of all Muslims that would qualify as ‘fundamentalist’. It’s just that the countries they live in (Arabian nations, Pakistan, some bits of Africa) are the ones in the news.”

Have you considered importing some Murree Brewery beer from Pakistan? Are there any good North African beers?

While I quite agree with the principle, and though I hope I’m wrong, I doubt it will happen in practice.

As for the “exogeneity excuse”, I simply mean the idea that what occurred over the last two decades with regard to Islamist terrorism, London, and the British security services, was somehow beyond the sway of the authorities. The prevalence of murderous ideologues in our capital city over this period appears in our discourse to be the result of some kind of mysterious force of nature, as uncontrollable as the weather, the movements of the planets, or the crime rate–“while unfortunate… authorities doing all they can… acts of God, &c.”

“Actually what I wrote was that fundamentalist Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity, not religion, in the West, and that fundamentalist Islam was the dominant form of Islam in the West, not the East. ”

Still not a statement that makes sense, unless you mean, “of the people I consider adequately doctrinaire to be properly considered Christian or Muslim, many are very doctrinaire indeed.”

Which is of course, with apologies to the discussion ongoing at another LibCon thread, fucking retarded.

It is so disingeneous for types like this Rodent fellow and Sunny Boy to seek to maliciously attack Melanie Phillips for being mentioned in the mass murderer’s manifesto – when so many giants of philosophy, politics etc were also mentioned – e.g George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Frank Field, Winston Churchill etc.

Just because Melanie Phillips is not (or rather is no longer) on the Left politically does not automatically render everything she says to be completely rejected and dismissed. I for one do not agree with a lot of what she says but there are some things that do strike a chord and which are worth considering.

When folks on here dismiss the march of cultural Marxism through our institutions as pure fantasy, they are not taking a step back and considering what this may actually mean. Little nuances say in the default position of certain matters which are very different from what was the normalised or established position a couple or more generations ago may be worth considering.

Well said by the way A & E Charge Nurse, Torquil and Colin, Paul Newman – fair minded contributors in a sea of raging bile.

The pitiful and childish level of debate and lack of fair mindedness and a sense of common decency on the part of so many on the left is so very sad and quite frankly embarrassing.

It is still possible to be decent and on the Left but you wouldn’t guess that on this Blog a lot of the time. Are you trying to compete with Richard ‘Looney Lenin’ Seymour?

You may disagree with, but you will find it hard to convince me that you do not understand it. Though if you really do not understand it, I’m not sure why you feel entitled to reinterpret it, or indeed, to describe it as “retarded”.

I enjoy using rude words, it annoys people like Paul D for example, who I originally thought was a parody. Don’t worry, I generally respect your opinions (for example your blogs on Cuba’s health surprised and informed).

But… don’t you see the problem that your definition generates (have I summarised your position correctly)?

I agree with that interpretation to a point, people who are effectively atheists seem to claim to be religious affiliation out of convenience without it ever effecting their behaviour, but claiming certain groups are majorities on completely made up lines and estimates involves a horrendous margin for error.

Malay muslims are the ones I come across most talking about it; I was reading a lot of anti-Islamist muslim blogs before I dropped out of the political bubble to run this pub. This guy and his blog-roll are a good place to start looking.

Vimothy:

Actually what I wrote was that fundamentalist Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity

Yes, and that’s how I responded:

Er, where did you get the idea that fundamentalist Christianity is the dominant form of that religion in ‘the west’?

I have added new emphasis to make it clear that I did get the point and responded correctly.

Regarding my data, three of the four grandparents to my eventual children are ordained members of the Anglican synod, my father is a Bible Translator and I was an active church-goer on three continents for over 20 years. I still see things go by.

Last numbers I saw, there were 300+ million Christians in the USA and around 30 million were fundamentalists, which is about 10%. The figures for over here (have a look at documents put out by the General Synod meeting that permitted women bishops not long ago) are much better; about 70% of the country give their religion as Christian and the vast majority, something like 80% of those, are Christmas-and-Easter secular Christians. Last figure I saw quoted was that perhaps 3-5% of UK church-goers belong to fundamentalist sects, though the figures are unclear because it is difficult to count the urban Charismatic house-church movement.

I’m beginning to wonder if you have somehow classed all Catholics as ‘fundamentalist’, which would be a serious mistake given how many Catholics live an extremely liberal interpretation of their religion, regardless of what their priests may tell them.

@142 Dunno, but they apparently use ‘political correctness’ to aid their Islamic masters in their invasion.
Quite why someone would go to the trouble to create an Islamic-Marxism axis is beyond me, especially when history tells us that we’ve heard this story before.

I also enjoy using rude words. One of my favourite quotes is by the Prince Wales, who, shot by an anarchist on Brussels train station, exclaimed, “Fuck it, I’ve taken a bullet.” Now that is how you do swearing so that it is both big and clever.

I’m not sure whether I defined anything, which is probably where the disagreement lies. I certainly never claimed that any group was a majority, on any lines, made up or otherwise. I said that fundamentalism was “dominant”, by which I mean, the future. I was admittedly being a little provocative and playing fast and loose with the definition of Christian fundamentalism. I suppose that what I really mean by ” Christian fundamentalism” is more properly Christian fundamentalism and Pentecostalism. In my analysis, though no doubt there are subtler and more sympathetic ones (I am, thank God, an agnostic), the differences are very slight.

As I see it, the new Christianity is a Christianity of the Global South–“Religion is always declining and reviving” (Andrew Greeley)–though as I said, this is not unique to me; I’m drawing on the work of talented academics. If anything will revive Europe’s moribund faith, it is the dynamic faiths of its immigrant populations.

Anyway, you are a historian, in training at least (IIRC?)–how do you analyse and categorise contemporary religiosity? Surely with more sophistication than John Q P, above.

I said that fundamentalism was “dominant”, by which I mean, the future.

But you also said ‘in the west’, which is precisely where this form of Christianity is not dominant. Increased wealth and education of the general public leads, on a quite predictable curve, towards secularised and liberal religious communities. As I pointed out, in the West fundamentalist Christinity is somewhere between 10% and 3% of the whole. In some parts of Africa, for example, this is not true.

Now, addressing:

suppose that what I really mean by ” Christian fundamentalism” is more properly Christian fundamentalism and Pentecostalism.

Even then, you’re talking about <10% of Western Christians. Again, in the developing world those stats are different. Basically, the poorer and more medieval (and more recently Christianized) your community, the more inclined towards pre-modern values that community tends to be. Your ‘reputable scholars’ would know this.

If anything will revive Europe’s moribund faith, it is the dynamic faiths of its immigrant populations.

All the evidence suggests that in the West, the religions of the Book are in decline. There is no suggestion that spiritual paths outside of that stable are declining. There are more and more converts to Buddhist, neo-Pagan, and other non-JCI religions every year.

Worth noting, btw, that I am an historian by training and that my current area of research is specifically comparative religion… not sure who you were talking to in your last paragraph there?

Okay, apologies–looks like I scanned your post too quickly and was a little unfair there. But surely it’s not that hard to see that other people are capable of looking at the same data, performing their own analyses and coming to radically different conclusions.

If you think that, for example, Roy is totally misguided about European Islam–though I cannot think of any academic who knows more about it–why not address his actual argument?

As for “liberal Anglicanism”, it seems just as obvious to me that it is dying and that one can barely fit a rizzla paper between it and atheism as it is obvious to you that it is “dominant” because it is the constitutionally established religion of the UK and if you ask people their religious persuasion, they will tick the box reading “CoE”, as I will, even though I no more believe in God than in Allah, Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

John, good to see you back, hows the new pub? Going to start blogging again?

Vimothy, Muslim culture/religion and European demographics are really not my big interest, macroeconomics and power relations and the media, and genuinely being a bit liberal are. That’s why I’m not able to fully answer all the people you quote, and I’m guite happy JQP has returned.

Apparently there are many decent people boiling with rage about being disenfranchised by an entire political class which seems determined to destroy their civilisation but they wouldn’t go on a mass-murdering rampage.

However modern secular leftists make common cause with Islamists and actually cheer on religious fascists and genocidal madmen

If you have a PhD in history, and run a pub, it sounds like the kind of place I would very much like to drink in.

On survey numbers and religious observance, there is a nice treatment in Jenkins’ >God’s Continent. If it were really true that over 70% of the population were believers, then there would be no crisis of faith in the UK, religious leaders who claimed otherwise could be accurately described as “deluded”, and the Former Archbishop of Cantebury would be guilty of hyperbole when he described the Church as “an elderly lady who mutters to herself in a corner, ignored most of the time”.

As for modernity and wealth leading to “secularised and liberal religious communities” on a predictable curve, well, obviously I disagree–What I am claiming is that secularisation leads to fundamentalism on a “predictable curve”, and that this is the basic dynamic of religiosity in the modern world. Religious fundamentalism makes no sense whatsoever in pre-secular societies.

Busy, tired, most of the time. Not much time for blogging, but occasionally dig into the comment threads.

Vimothy:

As far as I can tell you are committing the debating error of redefining the terms to suit your chosen conclusion.

Since the only currently acceptable way of determining a person’s religion is to see what they say themselves, self-definition as ‘Christian’ is the benchmark to use. Using the UK as the example, within that community, the vast majority of worshippers are part of congregations that are at most high-church Anglican, which is a very long way from Fundamentalist.

The reason for the Archbishop’s perception is to do with relative power and place: the Church is no longer the dominant socio-cultural influence, as it once was, nor is it the second richest and second most directly powerful institution in the country, so yes, it’s declining.

But we’re not talking about secular power of churches. We’re talking about how many people who self-define as Christian (or Muslim) are categorisable as ‘fundamentalist’ under current definitions.

You have, afaict, defined any secular Christians (or secular Muslims) as ‘not real’, which is a No True Scotsman error. Thanks for playing.

Also, I don’t have a doctorate, I’m afraid. I went out to work as a BGP and internetworking engineer during the .com boom instead of staying at Southampton to get one. I’m glad you like the sound of my pub, though; real ale, craft lager, blues, folk and conversation are what it’s all about.

What I am claiming is that secularisation leads to fundamentalism on a “predictable curve”, and that this is the basic dynamic of religiosity in the modern world. Religious fundamentalism makes no sense whatsoever in pre-secular societies.

Hadn’t seen this bit; this is genuinely interesting. Let me think a bit.

Thing is, the last sentence is accurate. Fundamentalism refers to a modern, reactionary development in JCI religions where modern commentators and political theologians call for a return to some (usually revisionist and mostly fabricated) past Golden Age which they liked better. It typically involves literalist and violently patriarchal interpretations of very old texts. Thus, you’re absolutely right that it is the movement of religion from a public requirement to a personal choice, and the advent of secularisation and rationality, which created fundamentalism.

And that was actually my point; you see violent fundamentalism when, and only when, society has become less conformist, and has progressed beyond the outdated mores being hawked by the fundamentalist. We are both accurately observing this.

Afaict you seem to think that the violent fundamentalist cause is winning. I’m not sure why. All the evidence I see is religious extremists fighting tooth and nail to repel borders from a sinking ship. Every atrocity in the name of religion spawns 10 political atheists among the younger generations, on any side of the aisle.

Violent fundamentalism is, in my reading, a death rattle. In the USA, and in Saudi (to name two typical examples) the only reason fundamentalism retains so much political power is traditional power structures which tend to gerontocracy (the US, for example, has lower age limits on standing for public office). In the US, as I said, under 10% of the population are fundamentalist Christians; they have a disproportionate amount of power due to a truly weird composite electoral structure.

I’m not interested in winning an argument, or redefining terms in order to do so. It’s up to you if prefer to think I’m arguing in bad faith–I certainly won’t take the other side in that argument. I’m sure you can understand why. Consequently, I’ll see if I can summarize my position in a more coherent fashion than I’ve achieved so far, and leave any further comment to you.

In my assessment, one can distinguish between pre- and post-secular religions, in which the latter are religion as “mere religion” and the former are religion without the emphasis on the distinctive and socially exclusive emphasis on active belief (qua belief) as the basis of the community in the latter. This is the meaning of secularism, after all. Liberal and fundamentalist Islam and Christianity are both in the religion-as-mere-religion, post-secular, category.

This isn’t supposed to be an esoteric argument, or semantic, and yes, I’ve heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy. The fundamentalist rather than liberal forms of the religions are currently the dynamic and “dominant” ones. I’m not claiming that the liberal forms do not exist. Rather, that you can be “culturally”, phenotypically, cladistically, “Muslim” or “Christian”, like me, or whoever, and yet not actually really give much of a toss. A traditional attitude to religion, in other words. This is why clowns like Dershowitz and co at Front Page Mag look at “Muslim” immigration and fertility rates in Europe and think, “Oh God, Eurabia!

The fundamentalist rather than liberal forms of the religions are currently the dynamic and “dominant” ones.

I genuinely don’t understand your use of the term ‘dominant’? To me, dominant would mean numerically; that they are the normal, mainstream version of a given religion. The ‘dominant paradigm’ of a society is the one accepted by the mainstream majority; the dominant religion of a nation is the one espoused by the majority of the population. Thus, to me, for fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity to be dominant, they’d have to be both the normal mainstream, and numerically superior.

It seems to mean something different to you? Possibly ‘currently shouting loudest’? If that’s what you mean, then this whole thing has been about different use of terms.

Sorry, John@154, pressed “comment” button unintentionally there–intended to write more, but I think you get the idea. I’m not sure what happened but it may have something to do with the bottle of wine I’ve been drinking. (Also, all of our comments seem to be overlapping. After I reply, I notice new comments made before I pressed post, so I end up complaining about stuff that you’ve already addressed, and probably looking like an asshole).

By dynamic, I mean something more than “shouting the loudest”, but less than being the raw population majority. I mean more like the most talented, most dynamic, most creative “lead” aspect of the religion. This is a qualitative, subjective assessment and the term was intended to be descriptive. By analogy, we could talk about the dominance of a particular belief system during the Enlightenment–that is, that of the philosophes–which was never held by a numerical majority of the population but would not be inaccurately described as “dominant”, in a cultural, ideological, imaginative, sense, I feel. I mean, here we are, right?

In your post @152, which I hadn’t seen when I posted my last comment, you write,

And that was actually my point; you see violent fundamentalism when, and only when, society has become less conformist, and has progressed beyond the outdated mores being hawked by the fundamentalist. We are both accurately observing this.

Which I broadly agree with (though I would use quite different terms).

I notice that you describe fundamentalist movements in quite pejorative terms. It is not easy to think well, and hence, objectively, of religious conservatives, in my experience. But their loss of control over the whole of the whole social and cultural scene seems to explain their relative dominance over this more limited field–that of religious belief. The development of religion as the definition of communities of believers necessitates the dominance of the most enthusiastic . But as you observe, it is generally because they are losing in a deeper cultural, historical sense, that they are winning in this limited sense in the sphere of religion as mere religion. And religion is changing as a result.

I don’t actually think this is all bad even on its own terms. For one thing, fundamentalist forms seem more democratic and distributed than what they replace. I dunno, I’m a bit of a glass-half-full guy on the issue of religious fundamentalism, lol.

I thnk John Q Publican has more of the right way of it than Vimothy. Speaking as an atheist, so no fan of religion in general, I find the assertion that “fundamentalism” is a majority sport in European/British Christianity bizarre. There is aof course a major fundamentalism in America, but the whole history of this is waaaaaaaay too much for a comments section!

I also agree with JQP that Islamic fundamentalism is a last gasp (probably) reaction against modernity. That does not diminish it as a threat though. THe problem is that Islam is undergoing something quite similar to the Reformation- (the Protestants were a fanatical fundamentalist movement trying to drag the Church back to a mythical, pure, golden age). But back then, the contagion was contained to Europe for practical reasons. The bloodshed was something Europeans did to ourselves, so to speak. In a globalising world with mass migration, the “Islamic Reformation” is everybody’s problem.

I am not an apocalypticist, as I’ve said in this or another thread, I’ve lost track of which. I don’t believe Europe will become Islamic, etc, though I have said that one cannot discount the possibility; it is one “possible future” though IMV it is a very unlikely one. But the fact is that “we” do have a dog in this fight, because as I’ve said, the ideological war in Islam is not limited to some faraway Islamic World. It is here on our doorstep, and global. It is the equivalent of the THirty Years War spilling over into Arabia, or even perhaps better, China. We can’t stand by and just accept being collateral damage.

My own answer to the problem is neither that of the “right” nor of the “left”, who try to pretend that (a) it’s all our fault, which it isn’t, due to nonsense about racism and Imperialism and thus (b) try to fix it with appeasing anti-racism, etc. That isn’t the cause, so, that fix is in the “not even wrong” category. The solution is in fact a policy of cultural corrosion.

The 1960s saw a return to social liberalism after a period of intense “sharia like” puritanism. Sex, drugs, rock’n’roll. These are the genius of the West. And they are the things the Islamists fear. Particularly the sexy women part. Unfortunately our own society is falling back into another intensely reactionary puritan period, and it’s no use blaming that on one political wing; both Left and Right are responsible. This makes us culturally weak, because we are ashamed of ourselves. How do we argue against an Islamist demanding sharia, we he can point at our own shame at our hedonisms? This attitude must be reversed, and fast, and we need to get to a stage of being proud to be, in this way, “cultural imperialists”.

Of course, any success in this manner will create even more anger from the reactionaries, and more violence. We must meet that in whatever practical means we can. But in the end, this war will be fought over the right of a girl to wear a bikini on the beach, instead of a burka. And, so long as we can be proud that we are the bikini society, we will win it because, in the end, girls prefer bikinis to burkas.

Sorry, I can’t be bothered to wade through the voluminous postings but if anyone wants some examples of left wing terror groups that fit with the anti capitalist rhetoric of the left then look no further than “November 17”. Should we blame left wing writers for their actions? No of course bloody not. Neither should even mad Mel be tarred by the actions of a lone, evil man.

By dynamic, I mean something more than “shouting the loudest”, but less than being the raw population majority. I mean more like the most talented, most dynamic, most creative “lead” aspect of the religion.

Erm, ok, I can see the argument that the fundamentalist aspects of Christianity are the most dynamic. That’s a very different d-word from ‘dominant’ though.

This, however, confuses me:

I notice that you describe fundamentalist movements in quite pejorative terms. It is not easy to think well, and hence, objectively, of religious conservatives, in my experience. But their loss of control over the whole of the whole social and cultural scene seems to explain their relative dominance over this more limited field–that of religious belief. The development of religion as the definition of communities of believers necessitates the dominance of the most enthusiastic . But as you observe, it is generally because they are losing in a deeper cultural, historical sense, that they are winning in this limited sense in the sphere of religion as mere religion. And religion is changing as a result.

As best I can pick it out, this suggests that to you, ‘religion’ == JCI?

Being a Druid, I’d debate that analysis. There’s a lot of pretty duynamic and enthusiastic Pagans out there. There’s a lot of berks, too, but it’s not just us; as I mentioned before, Buddhism, Daoism, Shamanism, recreationist traditional religions such as the resurgence in Olympian religion in Greece; there’s lots of religious dynamism going on out there that has damn all to do with JHWH, and is therefore not really subject to accusations of ‘fundamentalism’.

IanB:

THe problem is that Islam is undergoing something quite similar to the Reformation- (the Protestants were a fanatical fundamentalist movement trying to drag the Church back to a mythical, pure, golden age).

That’s pretty accurate, in so far as it goes. The Protestants most certainly were not looking backwards, though; they were militant progressives in the finest tradition. They were fundamentalists in the slightly modified sense, which is that they were literalists who paid more attention to the Old than the New testaments when it came to designing social codes.

That the current Islamist fundamentalism is the equivalent to an Islamic Reformation is and idea I first heard from London muslims; but again, it’s only a useful allegory as far as it goes. The actual Islamic Reformation happened in the 1800s. What’s happening today is much, much more akin to the Revival in the Bible Belt during the 1906-1945 era; and is producing people very much like the Bible Belt send to Congress.

The 1960s saw a return to social liberalism after a period of intense “sharia like” puritanism.

I wouldn’t agree, there. Puritanism, absolutely. Sharia-like? No. For a start, we never banned money-lending. Too many differences in the actual rules to describe the highly militarized, middle-class social order of the post-War era as being like a Sharia court system.

It has occured to me a number of times that most people who mention the Sharia have no damn idea what it is, how it works or what it’s for. It’s closer in kind to the Jewish Talmud than it is to a modern statute law system.

Bear in mind while reading that I’ve been making the case that its wildly irresponsible and reprehensible to terrify your readership with maximally insane and fantastical threats of imminent domination or slaughter at the hands of an unstoppable Marxist-Jihadist colossus.

How does Mel respond to the criticism she has received?

Today’s militantly secular leftists display some astonishing similarities to both modern-day Islamists and medieval Christian fanatics… Anyone who denies (Jihado-Marxoid-Christofanatic doctrine) is a heretic and has to be destroyed… all who oppose the left are evil right-wingers who must be destroyed. That to leftists is a moral project…

They are in the same mould as the religious and political totalitarian tyrannies of the past; they make in this respect common cause with the Islamists… they share the characteristic of a closed thought system which is totally impervious to reason and destroys all who challenge it with the monsters of history and Anders Behring Breivik.

That is surely why the left seized upon the Norway atrocity with demented joy and detonated a terrifying eruption of distortion and demonisation, irrationality, hatred and sheer blood-lust as it saw in the ravings of Anders Behring Breivik the mother and father of all smears which it could use to crush those who refuse to surrender to cultural totalitarianism.

Amazingly, this represents an actual ratcheting down of rhetoric by Mel, insofar she hasn’t accused her critics of a “verbal pogrom” or some such.

The Protestants most certainly were not looking backwards, though; they were militant progressives in the finest tradition.

There were looking backwards in a standard “fundamentalist” sense, to an imagined pure, previous form. They were certainly (the first?) “Progressives”; modern progressivism is the secularised development of protestantism/puritanism in the Anglosphere. Which is why I’m against it, heh.

The actual Islamic Reformation happened in the 1800s. What’s happening today is much, much more akin to the Revival in the Bible Belt during the 1906-1945 era; and is producing people very much like the Bible Belt send to Congress.

Puritanism comes in waves, and has so particularly in the USA. It’s a constantly losing battle, so it tends towards a sawtooth. In England there have been three major waves, for instance; the first leading up to Cromwell, the second created the Victorian Era, the third is the current one which had a raggedy beginning in the 70s but only became seriously ideologically hegemonic recently.

-at this “sharia” poster, the striking thing is that virtually all of it is the policy of all major UK political parties, and the ruling class.

It has occured to me a number of times that most people who mention the Sharia have no damn idea what it is, how it works or what it’s for. It’s closer in kind to the Jewish Talmud than it is to a modern statute law system.

Puritanisms are “of a kind” if not identical. I was watching the superlative 1969 Kenneth Clark documentary “Civilisation” recently, and he uses a term borrowed from HG Wells to describe three “Communities Of The Will”; Ancient Judaism, Islam and Protestantism. They have the same character. The implementations differe for various cultural reasons, but the motivations, intentions and character are broadly the same.

Fair play to her for explaining how it is Definitely Not Her Fault – she thinks that Brievik was motivated by a millenarian ideology, as were/are Stalin, environmentalists, Hitler, egalitarians, Ahemedinejad and multiculturalists.

I think Brievik’ll be pretty upset to realise that Mel thinks that he is in fact part of Team Secular Left Islamist Stalin. It’s a pretty special version of the Tu Quoque Ad Maximam, without even the Mea Culpa.

Interesting to note that she’s found that her fellow travellers have been making “too many weaselly equivocations about this, along the lines of ‘Yes, it was indeed a most terrible atrocity and one’s heart bleeds for those poor victims; but Norway’s politics towards Israel do stink/Norway’s Labour Party stinks/Quisling’s country, say no more/the Islamisation of Europe stinks/it was only a matter of time before someone was provoked by the railroading of public opinion into doing something like this’.”

I guess the use here of what Priestley liked to call ‘Komic Kapitals’ is supposed to convey irony, but, in fact, it really isn’t her fault is it? And it is perfectly reasonable to point out that it isn’t her fault when there is an attempt to smear her and to point out the smear.

I get it: some people don’t much like Mel P’s journalism, but, really, get a grip!

I’m more interested in the idea that it kind of is her fault, really, and that Spencer and Bawer and Fjordman and whoever else are to blame as well. And when they appear in the media saying, “oh, that was bad but it’s predictable given current policies and unless you do my suggestions XYZ it’s almost certainly going to happen again”, it reinforces that idea, to my mind, anyway. So I agree with the final para of Don Paskini @168.

What’s also interesting that this strategy is actually rather common. The good cop–bad cop routine (or “Mutt and Jeff”, as one blogger put it) of murderous thugs and their intellectual enablers is one with a lot of pedigree. So I am curious to see whether this critical approach is carried over to other incidents or if it only applies to right-wing terror.

The problem is that she has decided that no-one is to blame except Breivik himself; that:

those who are in the grip of millenarian apocalyptic fantasies tend to be lunatics or psychopaths; and so it is as ridiculous to ascribe the pathologically murderous behaviour of Breivik to political rage as it would be to do so in the case of Stalin, Hitler or Ahmadinejad.

The description of Breivik, however, as being “in the grip of millenarian apocalyptic fantasies” applies both to her and to the “decent people who are boiling with rage at being disenfranchised by an entire political class which seems determined to destroy their civilisation” to whom she refers.

As for:

some people don’t much like Mel P’s journalism

Indeed so. But I dislike her journalism, such as it is, because I prefer even opinion pieces to be founded upon a substratum that is within at least touching distance of fact. Ms Philips’s is informed by paranoid fantasies from start to finish; from her claim that Western civilisation is under threat of destruction either from Islamists or from “an entire political class” to her view that AGW is a “monstrous fraud” and “a giant cash cow for scientific researchers, while those who refuse to latch onto the poisoned udder find they risk professional suicide”.

I do come back to my previous point, however; many on the right, including Ms Philips, are convinced that Islamist preachers cause terrorism. Why do they not apply the same logic to their own writings? Why does “the USA is an enemy of Islam” encourage enmity of the USA and ultimately suicide bombings, whereas an “entire political class [is] determined to destroy [our] civilisation” will only cause some flutterings in the drawing room?

“I do come back to my previous point, however; many on the right, including Ms Philips, are convinced that Islamist preachers cause terrorism. Why do they not apply the same logic to their own writings?”

This is very odd. As far as I can tell Melanie Phillips does apply the same logic to her own writings. But she does not demand in her writings that any individuals or group be killed or attacked, but the Islamists she complains about do. Surely this is aa simple and important distinction? You don’t have to approve of Phillips’s views or rhetoric to recognise that there is a fundamental difference there.

The reason Melanie Phillips and those who agree with her have “gone off on one” isn’t that hard to discern, and her faux outrage being the recipient of some of her own medicine is entirely unconvincing.

She and her fellow travellers have helped to create the ideological broth in which intolerance, bigotry and fear of “the other” is not only nourished but positively glorified.

Seeing Mel and others on the right squirm as they try in vain to square the circle of how militant Islamism causes terrorism, but militant right wingery is somehow benign would be comic if it weren’t so nauseating, and about as convincing as all the huffing and puffing which followed the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford and the later debate about the Palin Target List.

Phillips has the effrontery to claim that:

“So those of us who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against their enemies found ourselves – and by implication, the many millions who share these mainstream views – grotesquely damned as accessories to mass murder. …..”

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. She, and those who support her are not being grotesquely damned, they are being justifiably called out for contributing by their hateful discourse to an environment in which such events happen.

This is very odd. As far as I can tell Melanie Phillips does apply the same logic to her own writings.

I have yet to see her accept that her writings, which are millenarian and apocalyptic, suggest that she is “millenarian and apocalyptic in character” and that she is therefore (by her own logic) likely to be “a lunatic or a psychopath”.

But she does not demand in her writings that any individuals or group be killed or attacked, but the Islamists she complains about do. Surely this is aa simple and important distinction? You don’t have to approve of Phillips’s views or rhetoric to recognise that there is a fundamental difference there.

Do they directly call for murder (in which case what are the police doing aboput it); or do they dogwhistle, as I suggested in the part of the last paragraph of my post you didn’t quote? Could you address that?

After all let’s not forget that when a branch fell on a girl and tragically killed on her the day she happened to not be in school because her teacher happened to be on strike, the Daily Mail wrote on their front page that she was killed ” because” of the strike!

I DO however think liberals (yes liberals; being a liberal or even a libertarian does not mean you sheepishly agree with everything anyone ever says, no matter how misleading, incorrect or hateful. It just means you allow them to say it without being arrested) should feel comfortable saying loudly that hateful views are damaging, and keep on holding people to account for their own actions.

Which I thought was all this post was doing but some people seem to think Melanie is being banned or accused of being directly responsible… I don’t see that.

What I like about Ms Philips is her broad general knowledge of history which informs her comments and observations on what is happening to Europe.

Civilizations these days, now that genocide is frowned upon, do not get snuffed out, they decline and fade. They melt like ice cream in the sun. It is a slow process and only some people notice the process. Melanie notices. That does not mean reacting like a deranged Nazi. What it does mean is taking sensible steps to stop the process like banning the veil, demanding one church site in a Muslim country for every mosque built in Europe. It means compulsory bilingualism for jobs and benefits. It means strict immigration controls. It also means far, far more attention and resources directed at education in state schools

[…] This may, of course, be because during the past decade, the majority of successful terrorist attacks have been by Muslims; far-right terrorism was known of before (Oklahoma, Soho nail bomber) but although a number of incidents have happened such as neo-Nazis stockpiling weapons, they have carried out no successful attacks which have caused anyone’s death. This has now changed, and one hopes that there will be less tolerance for the “Eurabia” conspiracy theories and allegations that there is some sort of Muslim/leftist plot to take over Europe. This kind of theory about another religious minority has already led to one genocide in Europe, and we know that many of those responsible for this propaganda against Muslims are Jewish, and almost all of those who are not are vehemently pro-Israel, so they have no excuse to plead ignorance. Regardless of whether they knew anything about Breivik or support his action, as “Flying Rodent” at Liberal Conspiracy notes, the potential of their rhetoric for inducing violence should have been obvious: […]